Really?

[simsqu]

BBC News headline:

"Girl, 15, found dead on holiday was 'much loved.' "

Really? THAT's the headline? Just once I'd like to see:

"Grandfather of twelve found dead was 'a miserable old bastard: good riddance' "

[Rhyd6]

sad though the situation is I was amazed that the caravan park was described as "up market". It looks more like a vast prison camp with row upon row of caravans. As I've driven past I've often wondered how you remember which one you're staying in.

R6

[Midsmartin]

Absolutely. Whenever a child dies, it is terribly sad, but they can't all be sweet and lovely. I do remember hearing one described as "popular" which at least to me can be code for arrogant, and probably one of the bullies, coming from a family of quiet people!

[Midsmartin]

Too late to edit. I'm sure there are lots of children who are both lovely and popular- no offence intended to any popular readers!

[XFool]

Too late to edit. I'm sure there are lots of children who are both lovely and popular- no offence intended to any popular readers!

None taken!

[Leothebear]

Santa Clause murdered by ISIS.

Result!

[Arborbridge]

BBC News headline:

"Girl, 15, found dead on holiday was 'much loved.' "

Really? THAT's the headline? Just once I'd like to see:

"Grandfather of twelve found dead was 'a miserable old bastard: good riddance' "

I was having a sandwich in a churchyard on Sunday and a similar thought came to me: I was surrounded by "beloved" dead people who apparently were all paragons of virtue and universally loved by everyone. There seems some sort of gap between this and the reality that the loving grandfather was a cantankerous old git who probably drove his wife crazy and had eye for the girls, or loved his drink too much.

Arb.

[Mike4]

Absolutely. Whenever a child dies, it is terribly sad, but they can't all be sweet and lovely. I do remember hearing one described as "popular" which at least to me can be code for arrogant, and probably one of the bullies, coming from a family of quiet people!

"Quiet people have the loudest minds."

~ Prof Stephen Hawking ~

[bungeejumper]

There's a [modern] gravestone in the churchyard opposite our house which reads: "He was a verray parfit gentil knight". Which, according to our Chaucer lecturer, was 14th century code for "He was pretty good in bed".

BJ

[Clitheroekid]

BBC News headline:

"Girl, 15, found dead on holiday was 'much loved.' "

Really? THAT's the headline? Just once I'd like to see:

"Grandfather of twelve found dead was 'a miserable old bastard: good riddance' "

It's presumably because of the old saying " Never speak ill of the dead". I understand it's based on the principle that the dead can't defend themselves, but it's always seemed a rather stupid saying to me. Death does not confer sainthood, and it would be rather limiting to public discourse if etiquette made it impossible to criticise Hitler or Stalin - or Jimmy Savile for that matter!

[88V8]

I was having a sandwich in a churchyard on Sunday and a similar thought came to me: I was surrounded by "beloved" dead people who apparently were all paragons of virtue and universally loved by everyone.

Perhaps because being in the churchyard means they left a good deal of money

In terms of being universally loved, I'm sure I'll be better thought of dead than ever I was when alive

V8

[UncleEbenezer]

It's presumably because of the old saying " Never speak ill of the dead". I understand it's based on the principle that the dead can't defend themselves, but it's always seemed a rather stupid saying to me. Death does not confer sainthood, and it would be rather limiting to public discourse if etiquette made it impossible to criticise Hitler or Stalin - or Jimmy Savile for that matter!

The passage of time affects that. There can't be many alive today who knew Hitler or Stalin personally and might be hurt by slander against them! But it is startling to hear ill of the newly-dead, as occasionally happens in an obituary of a leading gangster. Or even a lesser hate-figure.

Historical figures are of course portrayed by history's winners, and may be subject to revisionism. I'm not going to open a can of worms by speculating on last century's maddest leaders, but it's worth bearing in mind. Especially when an area of history is subject to taboos, as with cries of "holocaust denial" that cast a pall of fear over certain areas of historical research.

As for Savile, here's from 2012 when there were calls for an exorcism ...

Q: What’s the difference between Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine?
A: Lord McAlpine is alive to defend himself.

Doubtless not the only difference. But had McAlpine not been alive, where would his name be now?

To recap the story as it stands today: McAlpine briefly stood accused of kiddy-fiddling, based apparently on the word of one unreliable witness (“victim”) given credence by a BBC programme. The witness has now withdrawn the accusation on the basis of mistaken identity leaving no case against him, and the BBC with some serious egg on its face and a director general fallen on his sword.

The original accusation turns out to have been worse-than-flimsy: the police interviewed the “victim”, showed him a picture which he identified as his attacker, and then told him the picture was McAlpine?!!??! How the **** did that turn into a story worth taking seriously? The late, great Arthur Miller had the answer, and so do we if we call McAlpine’s accuser “Abigail”. Though that too would be inaccurate: pointing the finger at one man is not the same as kicking off the whole witch-hunt, and that’s been happening for years (as witness the absurdity of the red tape binding any adult contact with children outside the family context).

As for Savile? I have absolutely no idea: I never saw him or his TV programmes when he was alive, and I hadn’t even heard of his charity work until the whole kiddy-fiddling story suddenly filled the “news”. Noone is defending him, and there are hundreds of accusers against him: doesn’t all that put his guilt beyond doubt? It’s even been suggested his body might be dug up: a witch-hunt has turned into an exorcism!

The sceptic should at least question whether the case against him is proven. And I can only conclude that the evidence falls short. Most if not all of it is heavily tainted by compensation: if the powers-that-be had been interested in the truth, the very first thing they needed to do was rule out this expectation of personal financial advantage to his accusers!

And as to why noone is (so far as has been reported) defending him, Miller again has an answer: who wants to share Proctor’s fate? In the thick of a witch-hunt, even the wronged McAlpine wouldn’t dare say a word against his accuser lest he be reviled as insensitive to a victim. How much less then would anyone dare question a Savile-accuser’s compensationreward, let alone defend him?

[bungeejumper]

As for Savile, here's from 2012 when there were calls for an exorcism ...

And he'd hardly been dead a year.

Loads of people had known about Savile long before he died and the scandals finally hit the newspapers. I knew a sister at Stoke Mandeville hospital who had told me, maybe three years earlier, that none of the nurses would go into a room with him alone. And even the Brummie kids I used to teach, way back in the 1970s, had instinctively figured that there was something dodgy about him. Playground banter can be very cruel, and very perceptive sometimes.

BJ

[UncleEbenezer]

Loads of people had known about Savile long before he died and the scandals finally hit the newspapers. I knew a sister at Stoke Mandeville hospital who had told me, maybe three years earlier, that none of the nurses would go into a room with him alone. And even the Brummie kids I used to teach, way back in the 1970s, had instinctively figured that there was something dodgy about him. Playground banter can be very cruel, and very perceptive sometimes.

BJ

That's the kind of anecdotal evidence that says on the balance of probability he was a dodgy character.

I expect a similar group of nurses would say the same of many men who, rightly or wrongly, have a bit of a reputation (our Prime Minister, for instance). Or even of poor buggers who are just seen as losers with whom they wouldn't like to be seen.

[bungeejumper]

I expect a similar group of nurses would say the same of many men who, rightly or wrongly, have a bit of a reputation (our Prime Minister, for instance). Or even of poor buggers who are just seen as losers with whom they wouldn't like to be seen.

Ah yes, but the salient point is that she did say it to me, three years ahead of the public revelations about Savile. And that didn't happen by chance, I think?

As for Stoke Mandeville, I gather that the Savile suite (or whatever they used to call it) has had the Fred West/Cromwell Street treatment and is now a garden area. Sometimes that's all you can do to exorcise these memories?

BJ